How can a newspaper run a content-free editorial about an important statewide vote? How is it possible to say you're against a piece of legislation without describing it?

After exchanging lots of emails with the editorial page editor, Dick Hughes (who wrote the editorial), and Brian Priester, the newspaper's president and publisher, I've concluded that both of these guys are clueless about what it means to be a responsible journalist.

Even I, who was a journalism major at San Jose State College back in 1967 for just a semester, knows more about the ethics of editorial writing than Hughes and Priester.

I sent them a link to the Basic Statement of Principles of the National Conference of Editorial Writers. I pointed out that the first two principles are:

1. The editorial writer should present facts honestly and fully. It is dishonest to base an editorial on half-truth. The writer should never knowingly mislead the reader, misrepresent a situation, or place any person in a false light. No consequential errors should go uncorrected.

2. The editorial writer should draw fair conclusions from the stated facts basing them upon the weight of evidence and upon the writer's considered concept of the public good.

Note that "facts" are mentioned twice. Opinion has to be based on facts. Yet when I told Hughes about the significant factual errors in his editorial he emailed me:

Well, my first comment is that you shouldn't use all caps. Bad form. My second comment is what I told Hughes: read what the National Conference of Editorial Writers considers to be ethical editorial writing.

It sure isn't what Dick Hughes wrote. Because one of the most egregious factual errors in his Measure 49 editorial is this statement:

In fact, the only people who may benefit from Measure 49 are the lobbyists, interest groups and lawyers on either side.

This is obviously wrong. It shows that Hughes either knows nothing about Measure 49, or he's choosing to ignore the facts so he can make a predetermined recommendation to vote "no" without looking like more of an idiot than he already does.

Because if Hughes had said, "We're recommending you vote 'no' because we favor large subdivisions on farm, forest, and groundwater limited land. We don't want Measure 37 claimants to have transferability rights that will allow buyers of their property to develop it themselves. We're opposed to letting spouses of Measure 37 claimants be able to inherit the waiver. We favor allowing industrial and commercial uses on Oregon's most valuable farmland" – readers of the Statesman Journal would have said to themselves Why the @#$$%&! Is the newspaper taking this position?

This is why I strenuously argued that the editorial violated both of the ethical principles above.

It took an underhanded duplicitous approach to its "no" recommendation, failing to mention even one thing that Measure 49 would do if passed, and failing to mention any of the negative effects that Measure 37 will bring Oregon if left unfixed.

The National Conference of Editorial Writers says that fair conclusions have to be drawn from the stated facts. Yet Hughes presented no facts, none, to support his statement that lobbyists, interest groups, and lawyers may be the only people to benefit from Measure 49.

That's patently false. And Hughes got plenty of emails that informed him of that fact in response to his request for comments and suggestions on the draft editorial, as I reported yesterday.

Today I heard back from Brian Priester, president and publisher of the Statesman Journal. It's obvious that he, like Hughes, doesn't understand that an editorial is supposed to be based on more than personal opinion – which easily shades into crazy-ass fantasy, as was the case with Hughes' piece.

I could say, "Vote no on Measure 49 because it lets government bureaucrats come into your home and kill your dog or cat." Oh my god, that's shocking!

Well, it should be. Because I just made it up. Just like Hughes made up the sentence about Measure 49 not benefitting the general public.

This afternoon I heard from publisher Brian Priester. He wrote me:

The one you quoted as most egregious – "In fact, the only people who may benefit from Measure 49 are the lobbyists, interest groups and lawyers on either side," strikes me as 1) clearly opinion (by the use of the word "may" as opposed to "will") and 2) an accurate characterization and reasonable conclusion based on the information at our disposal.

Since it speculates on future events, I don't see how it could be construed as a factual error. At most, one could argue we drew the wrong conclusion from the arguments presented to us - and I am sure readers will argue that point in letters to the editor. So, no I don't consider this a "factual error."

Um, Mr. Priester, didn't you read the principle #2 that I sent you in an earlier email? To repeat:

2. The editorial writer should draw fair conclusions from the stated facts basing them upon the weight of evidence and upon the writer's considered concept of the public good.

Sure, it's the Oregonians in Action and Salem Chamber of Commerce party line that technical problems with the wording of Measure 49 won't allow any of the law's stated benefits to go into effect. But nobody believes this other than the most extreme Measure 37 fanatics.

Measure 49 was carefully reviewed by legislative counsel before being sent to the voters, which means that it will accomplish what it says it will do.

So when Priester says that Hughes' editorial is factual and draws correct conclusions, that's hogwash.

I've been a Statesman Journal subscriber for over thirty years and have always considered the newspaper to be a valuable asset to the Salem community.

Now that it's owned and run by Gannett, it sure seems like the corporate culture has changed. There's an arrogance to Hughes and Priester that screams "We can do whatever we want, journalism ethics be damned, because we can."

That's sad. Salem deserves better.

Vote "yes" on Measure 49. Show Hughes and Priester that the citizens of Oregon know the difference between right and wrong, even if they don't.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lets pare it all down to the street.
The truth will prevail.
Statesman Urinal endorses M-50.
M-50 is going to fail.
Then the same knuckleheads turn thumbs down on M-49 which will pass.
They are clueless.
At least they use Soy based ink so I don't mind wrapping my dead fish with their rag.

When faced with an initiative or a referendum, voters are expected to exercise the prudence that comes with the responsibilities of citizenship (and with education). Most readers know of the struggles the Founders went through in laying the foundation for the political system we live under. They sought something that would work then and in the future; and they were filled with doubt. They were influenced by their reading of everyone from Burke and Locke, back to Aristotle and Plato - as are most of us who read this.

I preface this response because the Measure 49 referendum turns on the very issues that concerned the Founders, concerned Burke, Locke (and Hobbes), Aristotle, and Plato - the capability of the citizen to act with prudence and judgment.

I am disturbed by the blatant misstatements of outcomes in both Measures before us in November. What really disturbs me is the inability (incapability?) of the purported tribunes of the people to exercise the prudence and judgment that the Founders, philosophers, and advocates expected. I am addressing here the purported Fourth Estate represented by Dick Hughes and the Statesman-Journal.

The S-J wistfully presents itself as an entity with quasi-like judicial aspirations - it markets itself as obligated to look at the evidence, sort out truth from fiction and represent itself as the voice of the people (why else have so many newspapers over the ages called themselves "Tribune"?). Unfortunately, we can no longer rely upon such "tribunes." They are as capable of being seduced by half-truths as are the voters (or worse, willing).

I refer here to the S-J's editorial conclusion that ""Oregon won't be devastated by letting Measure 37 take its course." The conclusion they drew ignored the evidence, failed to sort out truth from fiction, and elected to speak only for some of the people, not for the over-arching principles that the Fourth Estate proposes as a justification for its social, political, and moral value.

The political campaign we are enduring comes at us solely because the Fourth Estate has abrogated its responsibilities by substituting the bottom line of the balance sheet for the bottom line of truth.